Check onboarding progress for a vacation rental property on lilo. Returns which setup steps are complete and which are still needed (property details, photos, house rules, calendar sync, payment setup, etc.). Pass lilo_code (e.g. PROP-6408) or property_id (UUID).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lilo_code | No | Property lilo code (e.g. PROP-6408) | |
| property_id | No | Property UUID (alternative to lilo_code) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it's a safe read. The description adds meaningful context: the return value lists completed and pending steps, and both identifier options are explained with an example format. This goes beyond the structured annotations, though it doesn't describe edge cases (e.g., missing property).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences long, front-loads the primary action and resource, and packs useful details (list of steps, identifier examples) without redundancy. Every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple read-only nature, rich annotations (readOnlyHint/destructiveHint), and full schema coverage, the description is complete. It explains the output (completion status of setup steps) and how to provide input, so no critical information is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that lilo_code and property_id are alternatives ('Pass lilo_code or property_id') and provides a concrete example (PROP-6408). This helps the agent understand the relationship between the two optional parameters, which the schema alone doesn't convey.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description starts with 'Check onboarding progress for a vacation rental property on lilo', which clearly states the action (check) and the resource (onboarding progress). It also enumerates the specific setup steps covered (property details, photos, house rules, calendar sync, payment setup), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_vacation_rental_details or get_vacation_rental_house_rules.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives clear context on what the tool does and how to invoke it (pass lilo_code or property_id). It does not explicitly name alternatives or states when not to use it, but the purpose is specific enough that usage intent is unambiguous. A minor gap: no explicit exclusion of other get_vacation_rental_* tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
There is significant overlap and redundancy among tools, causing ambiguity. For example, analyze_booking_threat_risk, analyze_guest_communication_risk, and analyze_guest_interaction_risk are aliases or near-duplicates, and multiple tools like get_vacation_rental_details and fetch_vacation_rental_details appear to serve the same purpose. This makes it difficult for an agent to choose the correct tool without confusion.
Most tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., check_vacation_rental_availability_and_pricing, get_vacation_rental_details), which aids readability. However, there are minor deviations, such as some tools using 'analyze' vs. 'assess' or 'detect' for similar risk functions, and a few tools like 'ingest_philadelphia_public_records' use a different verb style, but overall the naming is largely predictable.
With 67 tools, the count is excessive for a vacation rental server, leading to bloat and potential overwhelm. Many tools could be consolidated (e.g., multiple risk analysis tools, duplicate property detail fetchers), and the scope feels unfocused, including niche tools like those for Philadelphia events or World Cup compliance that might be better handled as parameters in broader tools.
The tool set provides comprehensive coverage for the vacation rental domain, including booking, risk assessment, compliance, maintenance, evidence management, and guest interactions. There are no obvious gaps; it supports full CRUD/lifecycle operations and specialized workflows, ensuring agents can handle most scenarios without dead ends.
